From: WI Emperor Leo I declined to name Majorian as Western Roman Emperor in 457 AD?
After Avitus's deposition Majorian initially bided his time, perhaps because he was hoping for recognition from the eastern emperor Marcian. But Marcian died on 27 January 457 from gangrene after he broke his leg, presumably before he did anything regarding the west, and he was succeeded on 7 February by the general Leo, who likewise seems not to have been inclined to name a western emperor. Rather, on 28 February 457, Ricimer was officially designated patricius et magister militum ("Patrician and Master of Soldiers") and Majorian magister militum ("Master of Soldiers") ("his cons. Ricimer mag. mil. patricius factus est pridie kl. Martias et factus est Maiorianus mag. mil. ipso die": Fast.vind.prior.583). Such appointments could only have been made legally by Leo I, so it would appear that Leo initially declined any request for imperial status for Majorian and responded instead by granting lesser honors to the two western generals. This would mean that, at least for the time being, Leo I intended to rule as sole emperor.
Eventualy Leo reluctantly recognised Majorian as his Imperial colleague on 28 December 457 after the latter's victories against the Allemani.
WI Eastern Roman Emperor Leo I decided not to name Majorian as Western Roman Emperor thus reuniting the Roman Empire?
How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
Leo I (Valerius Leo) was indeed a very influential emperor in the west. In fact, there were three instances where Leo was sole Roman emperor (461, 465-67, 472-73), and he was the one who appointed Anthemius as Western emperor. Put simply, Leo very clearly wanted influence in the western provinces.

As you can see, there has been a thread about this before, but it essentially received no responses. Rather than reviving a 13-year(!) old thread, I've decided to make a new one, per forum rules. TL;DR Leo was very reluctant to accept Majorian as Western emperor initially, and seemingly intended to rule as sole emperor. Suppose Leo does, in fact, decline to raise a Western emperor, and reunites both halves of the empire under his rule. What could the results of this be?

Additionally, this second bit is mainly a thought experiment, but what if, rather than being sole emperor right off the bat from 457 onwards, Leo instead becomes sole emperor in 465 or in 472? I mean, he technically was, but he didn't have much governmental influence in those periods and legally he was just filling up the post until another Western emperor was appointed.

So what if, in either of these three years (457, 465, 472), Leo juridically became sole emperor and ruled both halves of the empire?
Leo was supported by Asper the general in becoming emperor. Would you be looking for Asper to be killed earlier or continue to serve as general?
The best starting point would be 457, and killing Ricimer would be obligatory to make this happen.
Majorian was quite docile, but I am not sure at all if the Roman Senate/Aristocracy would accept.
Majorian's military intellect and influence could've been useful for Leo, proclaiming him as Consul or Magister Militum of the West, so he could atleast have military control over the West.

The other two starting dates would be practically useless, since his control over the West would be entirely ceremonial, since by that time Rome was ruled by the average romano-german plotter of the decade and a vastly corrupted Senate which didn't care at all who ruled, but instead how to become richer and more powerful.
Leo was supported by Asper the general in becoming emperor. Would you be looking for Asper to be killed earlier or continue to serve as general?
Send him and his men to kill Ricimer. Still ally with the Isaurians like IOTL.

Next step: send Theodoric the Goth to kill Aspar.
Last edited: